VE-12-80ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS & ORDER
Hearing: February 27, 1980
Decision Made: March 4, 1980
Findings Written: March 5, 1980
VARIANCE
VE-12-80, RELAXATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENT
ZONING ADJUSTOR DECISION: After public testimony and review, the decision
of the Zoning Adjustor is to approve the applicant's request for a setback variance.
A. FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 4.25.030 of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance, the Zoning Adjustor has the responsibility of determining that the
granting of this application will not be detrimental to the surrounding
properties. In assuring compatibility, the Zoning Adjustor based his decision
on the testimony presented at the above noted Zoning Adjustor Hearing as well
as criteria set forth in the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance for review of this
application. The Zoning Adjustor hereby finds the following:
,1. It was found that the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would
deprive the subject property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity. Other properties in the vicinity have similar
setbacks as the applicant proposes, which is a 41' setback from the
centerline of Dean Avenue.
2. The Zoning Adjustor noted that alternative development patterns were not
feasible as they would interfer with the existing sewage disposal system at
the site.
3. No written or oral objections were submitted to the Planning Department
regarding this application after required public notice had been given as
required by state law.
4. It was found that this action will not be injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity and that the granting of this variance will not
be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare.
B. ORDER:
Applicant's request is hereby approved and with the following stipulations;
1. The applicant shall maintain his site design in substantial conformance with
the "plot plan" on file with this application, and in any case, shall observe
all setback requirements as prescribed by the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance.
2. Applicant will submit a detailed sketch plan for approval to the Spokane
County Health District.
3. Applicant will execute an agreement to participate in a future Road
Improvement District or County Road Project with the Spokane County
Engineers Office.
C. PARTIES OF RECORD: NONE
D. GENERAL DATA:
a. Location and Legal Description: Section 13, Twn 25, Runge 43 EWM
East Spokane Add Pipers Sub, Bik 13, Lts 4 thru 9 & 13 thru 18 Blk
1 and Lt 10 Bik 4 inc. ptn of NE 'z vac. South of 4 adj and vac.
David St.
b. Applicant: Wico Investment Company
6518 Dean
Spokane, WA 99206
c/o Vernon E. Gallup
c. Site Size: Approximately 1.5 acres
d. Proposed Use: Expansion of Office Building
e. Existing Zoning: Manufacturing
f. Variance Requested: Applicant proposes expanding, office
building to within 41 ft. of center line of Dean Avenue, whereas, the
Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires 65 ft. setback in this
zone.
g. Application of Zoning Provision: Chapter(s) and Section(s) 4.12.040
THOMAS L. DAV IS, Zoning Adjustor
1
.
At said time and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting of
thi s applic ation .
SPOKANE COU NTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ZONING ADJUSTOR HEARING TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274
TIME: Wednesday, February 27, 1980 1: 00 p. rn.
PLACE: N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldg.
Conference Room (2nd floor)
VARIANCE
VE-12-80, Relaxation of Setback Requirement
a. Location: Section 13, Township 25, Range 43 EWM
East Spokane Add Pipers Sub, Blk 13, Lts 4 thru
9 b 13 thru 18 Blk 1 and Lt 10 Blk 4 inc. ptn
of NE 1/2 vac. South of 4 adj and vac. David St.
b. Applicant: Wico Investment Company
6518 E. Dean
" Spokane, WA 99206
c/o Vernon E. Gallup
c. Proposed Use: Expansion of Office Building
d. Site SiZe: 1.5 acres
e. Existing Zone: Manufacturinq
f. Variance Requested: Applicant proposes expanding office building to
within 41 ft. of center line of Dean Avenue,
whereas, the S;okane County Zoning Ordinance
requires 65 ft. setback in this Zone.
g. Application of Zoning Ordinance: 4.12.040
.
tt
r~+, w ~ ~ f ' . .
~ ~ . )90~
±pT I4N ~ U , " ~
C, E
/ .S • _
S, • • • ~►1 A t w+'!'= ~
, . z
.
Z u~
c ~ ^
~
_ ~ ~ oE ~►'~E ~
Y
j ~ ~ y - bc , tL
. , ~ `P~ • 4
•Y I ~ '
N ~I t w~~ J
L 1. l-
,
N ~ GOr
~
E~t
• ~J ~
~
vAl~i t
• ~ ~ i~~+Q~
at ~ ~t 11 V t _ ~ - _ ~ ~ ^ r
' ^ ` G
_ . `
. y.- _ ►
R1 . _•~•*ti~." ' " „ _ L , ~
. _ _ _ , ~ , , r r ~ ,
_
~ ~ TN
T • ~ ~
~ t
i ~
. A.
: ' ~ •
46b ~ ~ ' ~ I
~
ac
~ t►~o~od~" • ` .
G rr ~t~, t
' 1 '4
,
~ ► ~ ~ ~ _ ~ t-`.` ~ ~ 1 1 "'sy y''~d"~ _ ' ~ . ~
•...ii~ ~r~ 7, tva~f~iiytii
, ~ ' ' • ' ' l,! ~ ' _ _ ~ l ~ , , ~ .
-1 - -
4 r~ 4y~ ~
V.tr
ic:a Liun ~huuld be detayecJ unt : , • ` ~
ipprovai , froiri the Count~
.1roposed road improveineiif.
tlccording to the legal description the access easeriient only covers the
3pplicant's property. This must be clarified prior to granting any
vari ance. The end resul t wi 11 t e that the easement access wi 11 be firorn
Va1 iey Road. 1Jhi1e this is a itkiintained County roaci there is only 40'
if right of way and we should vndeuvor to obtain additional width. The
appl i cant shoul d be requi red to execute a noti ce to the pjbl i c that hi s
property is served by a private road.
VL-16- 8U The map does not properly port)-dy the 1 eya 1 descri pti on . The property
and i s south of the rai 1 road. Appl icant shoul d cl ear wi th tiie Traffi c Enqi rieer-
. UL-4-80 h i s proposed access to the s i tu.
ii- -12-90 I f the vari ance i s gr-anted i tsI,oul c1 Ue s ubject to tiie fo11 owi ng c0r1-
d ltion:
i. Appl icant ext•cute an 4Agr0onr.-,1t tO ;.:jr°ti Ci~Wte if'i J fliture RID and/or
C:RP .
- 13-~30 I f v~,riar~ce i 5 yranLed i t sh~~ul ~1 !~e 5un jECt tu triN tol lowing condi tion:
1. Appl i cant executc, a riutit-e ti~ th ~,roper ty i s served by
a I.jri vate r'o,id.
;•1'd oI~ciiiiy to tiIE ,~;,~;►~~v~ii p l ~,t ~_.1~~1'e d~:,ii ci o t o
~~t uti l i t;~ ease-
inent al ong tiie al-jpl i cant' S weS t propert.y l i lit. '.Je 44oui d recoiiwend deni (ii
;)i tiie Wa1Ver- r,f
(W 13E)pl i cdiit' s E►l-OperAy i 5 Li Naiiiianu i~ tr Ic.t 'ha r► rly iiu f ruri-Lage un at7
es tabi i shed and mi nta i ned County Road. Wi thout more s peci f i c i nformat i on
un h i s proposed access we are unabl e to s ubmi tt a recomniendati on .
Applicant has access Lo his pruperty by means of an easement extendiny
f+-om Russell Road. Russell Road has orily 40 feet of right of way
~!;d t•ii 11 no doubt requi re impruvem-iit as the area develops. Tflerefore we
.tI'Aald have an additional 10 tzet of riyht of way if at al1 possible,
i~,)pI icant shoul d al su be requi red to execute a nnr i,-~ t,- the puhl i c
' i i,~ r':~~,~_rC , i . ~_r•Jt~ ! ; ~ <<,fit_~ r~_~s_i.